| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2004 01:00:26 PM |
| Object: |
God is just a theory |
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:56:03 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote
No, it's valid to conclude that (if there are no infinite causal
chains), then, because there is at least one caused thing,
there is at least one uncaused thing.
The argument goes that this "uncaused thing" must be God!
Hold on. It's not valid to conclude from the above that there are any
"uncaused things," let alone how many of them there are and what they
must be.
Aquinas was not a polytheist, nor are others who use >the argument.
What do Aquinas's religious beliefs have to do with the validity of
the argument? To conclude that an argument's invalid, because it was
made by a Catholic (or even because it's only made by Catholics) is
mere ad hominem.
Therefore there could only be one of these uncaused >things, or gods.
No. Aquinas said that there could only be one uncaused thing, "and
this all men call God." But neither is a valid conclusion from the
above; the first is an implicit premise that's not obviously true, and
the second's an explicit premise that's obviously false.
So it
does come down to a special pleading for just one case.
One can turn the argument into a special pleading for one case, by
adding extra premises. (Aquinas added the above two, plus a third,
"Infinite causal chains are absurd", which he did try to support.)
But to say that the argument that I just gave was 'special pleading'
is attacking a strawman, because mine didn't have any of those
premises, and certainly didn't have the same conclusion.
However, I see no reason why a first cause has to be God.
Do you see any reason why there has to be any first cause at all?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 12:21:58 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
What do Aquinas's religious beliefs have to do with the validity of
the argument?
First Cause is an argument that cannot have any validity, as Russell
points out. The very idea of First Cause, Prime Mover, or whatever, has
a fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it and is therefore
summarily rejected, as Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 07:34:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
What do Aquinas's religious beliefs have to do with the validity of
the argument?
First Cause is an argument that cannot have any validity, as Russell
points out. The very idea of First Cause, Prime Mover, or whatever,
has
a fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it and is therefore
summarily rejected, as Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of
the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world
has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and
further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much
weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it
used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on
cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was
a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind,
I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one
day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and
I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question
'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the
further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,
so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
I've already explained why this dilemma fails. If there can be
anything without a cause, it cannot be the world (even if by world he
meant the cosmos because the cosmos evidently did have a beginning, so
it's not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as something that did not
evidently have a beginning.
It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How
about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the
world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other
hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is
no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
(In fairness, Russell said all this back in 1927, before the evidence
for the Big Bang was in).
The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination.
Ridiculous; Aquinas was perfectly able to imagine something that didn't
have a beginning.
Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a
Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might
be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
1. A First Cause is not logically impossible.
------------------
2. There might be a First Cause.
QED
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 09:51:04 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Russell:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
GD:
... If there can be
anything without a cause, it cannot be the world, even if by world he
meant the cosmos, because the cosmos evidently did have a beginning ...
How is it that it is known to be true that the universe (or cosmos, if
you will, everything there is, considered as a whole) had a beginning
Georgie? Wouldn't that mean that God would have had to have a beginning
too if God is among all the things the total of which comprize
everything there is, considered as a whole (universe)?
Russell:
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty
of our imagination.
GD:
Ridiculous; Aquinas was perfectly able to imagine something that
didn't have a beginning.
eggs@nospam:
Yeah, as long as that imaginary something without a beginning is God,
and nothing else. 8^)
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you and
Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there is at any
given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only God, who is
special? That's fallacy of special pleading.
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered as a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
Making a special pleading that God is the only thing that can be eternal
is summarily rejected as logical fallacy of special pleading. Poof,
there goes your idea of a GodŽ, the hypothetical Creator, the
hypothetical First Cause
GodŽ, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical First Cause, has an
inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for GodŽ) so it is summarily
rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as Bertrand Russell
points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Dec 2004 01:09:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Russell:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
GD:
... If there can be
anything without a cause, it cannot be the world, even if by world
he
meant the cosmos, because the cosmos evidently did have a beginning
..=2E.
How is it that it is known to be true that the universe (or cosmos,
if
you will, everything there is, considered as a whole) had a
beginning Georgie?
Well, I didn't mean that your imaginary set had a beginning, and that's
why I said 'cosmos' rather than universe. I meant the space-time
continuum and the matter and energy in it; Russell could have meant
that by "world," or he could have meant "planet" - but both apparently
had beginnings, by the scientific evidence.
Wouldn't that mean that God would have had to have a beginning
too if God is among all the things the total of which comprize
everything there is, considered as a whole (universe)?
If there's such a set in fact, and if a "God" exists in fact, then that
"God" would be in that set. There's no evidence, though, that Russell
was talking about sets.
Russell:
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the
poverty
of our imagination.
GD:
Ridiculous; Aquinas was perfectly able to imagine something that
didn't have a beginning.
eggs@nospam:
Yeah, as long as that imaginary something without a beginning is God,
and nothing else. 8^)
One example is enough to show Russell wrong here.
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and
Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there is at
any
given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only God, who
is
special? That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no; one can imagine your set having no beginning; but not how it
could be a First Cause of anything.
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and its
matter and energy, not sets. It sounds like you're equivocating on the
term 'universe.'
Making a special pleading that God is the only thing that can be
eternal
Well, no; your imaginary set could be eternal, just not a cause of
anything.
is summarily rejected as logical fallacy of special pleading. Poof,
there goes your idea of a God=AE, the hypothetical Creator, the
hypothetical First Cause
To be replaced by a hypothetical "Universe" as the hypothetical First
Cause? If you want that idea taken seriously, perhaps you should try
to explain how this hypothetical of yours caused anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 05:03:32 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and
Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there is at
any
given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only God, who
is
special? That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no ...
Well yes sir. You and Aquinas argue that everything must have a
beginning -- except God, who is special! That is the logical fallacy of
special pleading (not being logically consistent). Look it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
15 Dec 2004 01:11:03 PM |
|
|
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no ...
Well yes sir. You and Aquinas argue that everything > must have a
beginning -- except God, who is special!
No, Aquinas argued no such thing, and certainly no atheists do -
apparently you've made that 'argument' up yourself, in order to commit
the fallacy of attacking a strawman again.
That is the logical fallacy of
special pleading (not being logically consistent).
Whatever; no one has 'argued' it except you.
Look it up.
It's your strawman; look it up yourself.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 01:39:42 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There are no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings, and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 02:19:10 PM |
|
|
In article <2Zawd.763257$8_6.759861@attbi_s04>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There are no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings, and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
Iwould have interpreted George as saying that George can observe many
things with beginnings but not anything known not to have had a
beginning.
But then Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, and I often disagree on the
meanings of what I have said, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 10:12:03 AM |
|
|
X wrote:
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that
you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything
there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning,
only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There are
no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings,
That's one error; I didn't say anything about what you can observe.
You've claimed to be able to observe sets that have no beginnings.
and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
No; my bad. The first part's correct - 'there's no things that I can
observe that are without beginnings' - but the second's ambiguous. I
can observe plenty of things that did have beginnings. hat have
beginnings. Which makes your idea that 'everything there is at any
given time' had no beginning a non-starter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 02:25:28 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
X wrote:
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that
you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything
there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning,
only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There are
no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings,
That's one error; I didn't say anything about what you can observe.
You've claimed to be able to observe sets that have no beginnings.
and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
No; my bad. The first part's correct - 'there's no things that I can
observe that are without beginnings' - but the second's ambiguous. I
can observe plenty of things that did have beginnings. hat have
beginnings. Which makes your idea that 'everything there is at any
given time' had no beginning a non-starter.
You still don't get it, George. None of our personal subjective
convictions, your, mine, or anyone else's, is relevant, the idea of
First Cause is summarily rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy in
it (special pleading). Understand this point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 11:33:49 PM |
|
|
In article <YgHwd.516606$wV.371856@attbi_s54>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
X wrote:
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that
you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything
there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning,
only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There are
no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings,
That's one error; I didn't say anything about what you can observe.
You've claimed to be able to observe sets that have no beginnings.
and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
No; my bad. The first part's correct - 'there's no things that I can
observe that are without beginnings' - but the second's ambiguous. I
can observe plenty of things that did have beginnings. hat have
beginnings. Which makes your idea that 'everything there is at any
given time' had no beginning a non-starter.
You still don't get it, George. None of our personal subjective
convictions, your, mine, or anyone else's, is relevant, the idea of
First Cause is summarily rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy in
it (special pleading). Understand this point?
It is impossible for anyone sane to understand how something not known
to be impossible can be known to be impossible.
But Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon,seems to be trying to break the
Red Queen's for believing such impossible things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 01:21:53 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote :
... not known to be impossible ...
Therefore it is possible that there might be a First Cause?
Argument from ignorance.
It is not a question of anyone proving that it is impossible, sir. You who
are the proponents of the idea there might be a First Cause have the full
burden of proof in the mater. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
doubters. You should know this principle of valid argument by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
It is a question of how you proponents of the idea that there might be a
First Cause could ever reasonably argue that there might be such a thing in
the first place, in the face of the inherent special pleading in the idea of
a First Cause? Is it that you do not understand that the first test of any
idea is to check to see if it is internally logically consistent and has no
inherent logical fallacy like your double standard, your special pleading
for one thing among all?
As things stand now your idea that there might be a First Cause is summarily
rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy in it (special pleading). You
have no case, unless you can find a work-around for the problem of special
pleading in your idea there might be a First Cause. Is there something about
the fallacy of special pleading that you do not understand? Bottom line, it
is logical inconsistency. The idea of First Cause relies on a logically
inconsistent double standard, one for everything there is except for one
special thing, and another standard for that hypothetically "special" thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 07:08:19 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
X wrote:
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that
you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything
there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning,
only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, 'There
are
no
things that I can observe that are without beginnings,
That's one error; I didn't say anything about what you can observe.
You've claimed to be able to observe sets that have no beginnings.
and plenty that I
can observe that are without beginnings'??
No; my bad. The first part's correct - 'there's no things that I
can
observe that are without beginnings' - but the second's ambiguous.
I
can observe plenty of things that did have beginnings.
beginnings. Which makes your idea that 'everything there is at any
given time' had no beginning a non-starter.
You still don't get it, George. None of our personal subjective
convictions, your, mine, or anyone else's, is relevant, the idea of
OK; then I'm sure you won't mind my snipping yours.
Understand this point?
Perfectly. You can't refute (or even, apparently, understand) the
argument, so you've made up a strawman instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
20 Dec 2004 08:19:44 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
You still don't get it, George. None of our personal subjective
convictions, yours, mine, or anyone else's, is relevant, the idea of
First Cause is summarily rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy in
it (special pleading). Understand this point?
OK; then I'm sure you won't mind my snipping yours.
Non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
20 Dec 2004 11:53:36 PM |
|
|
In article <4LLxd.607263$D%.300862@attbi_s51>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, having snipped all of George, I felt
justified in snipping the irrelevant parts of Septic XL Troll, the
Craven Capon.
OK; then I'm sure you won't mind my snipping yours.
Non sequitur.
Sequitur, in the sense of 'what goes around, comes round.'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 06:00:27 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
e...@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only
God, who is special?
No, that can be imagined. It's clearly a stupid, if not an absurd
idea, though - there's no things I can observe that are 'without
beginnings,' and plenty that I can.
That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no ...
Well yes sir. You and Aquinas argue that everything > must have a
beginning -- except God, who is special!
No, Aquinas argued no such thing, and certainly no atheists do -
apparently you've made that 'argument' up yourself, in order to commit
the fallacy of attacking a strawman again.
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause. Except god who
is stated to be the first cause.
That is the logical fallacy of
special pleading (not being logically consistent).
Whatever; no one has 'argued' it except you.
Look it up.
It's your strawman; look it up yourself.
.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 12:14:04 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to
go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing. He says that it's an empirical fact ("in the
world of sense") that some things are caused by antecedent conditions.
Either those conditions were uncaused - in which case there's at least
one uncaused thing - or caused by conditions antecedent to them. In
every case, either there is an uncaused thing, or the chain of
causation extends backward to yet earlier conditions. Either a chain's
infinite, or it has a beginning - which has to be an uncaused thing or
things.
"Everything must have a cause" is simply a ridiculous strawman that
some employ for their own reasons..
Except god who
is stated to be the first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 08:45:01 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to
go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 11:51:13 PM |
|
|
In article <NQMwd.518312$wV.30498@attbi_s54>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to
go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
That argument is a perfect example of "if you can't prove it true, then
it must be false" which is more formally known as the fallacy of
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, one of Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's
favorites.
So failure to prove the necessity of a First Cause does NOT prove its
impossibility, no matter how often Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon,
wrongly claims that it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 12:36:04 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <NQMwd.518312$wV.30498@attbi_s54>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to
go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
That argument ...
You are mistaken, that is not an argument, it is simply highlighting the
logical fallacy (special pleading) in the idea of First cause. That is
why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected.
It is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 12:57:30 PM |
|
|
In article <odQwd.676930$mD.272568@attbi_s02>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <NQMwd.518312$wV.30498@attbi_s54>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to
go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
That argument ...
You are mistaken, that is not an argument, it is simply highlighting the
logical fallacy (special pleading) in the idea of First cause. That is
why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected.
Any way of saying that something is false is a claim, and if not an
argument, or at least supported by an argument, must be discarded by
right thinking agnostics.
It is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
Please explain, oh Septic XL Troll, old Craven Capon, how failing to
prove something true manages to prove it false. That is the FALLACY OF
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM, that you are making again. And again. And
again, ad nauseam (which is another sort of fallacy).
Then explain why saying that is not exactly the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD
IGNORANTIAM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 03:42:21 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Please explain how failing to
prove something true manages to prove it false.
Nobody has to prove your idea there might be an uncause First Cause false,
old boy. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the doubters. That's a
form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
It is sufficient for the doubters to point out that your idea there might be
such a thing is summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special
pleading for that one thing) inherent in it.
If you can't find a work-around to take care of this issue then your idea is
dead, old boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 09:55:11 AM |
|
|
XL wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Please explain how failing to
prove something true manages to prove it false.
Nobody has to prove your idea there might be an uncause First Cause
false,
I doubt what you say here.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the doubters.
Great.
Of course, you, Septic, remain the completely self-refuting old idiot
of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 12:10:25 AM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
[snip]
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing. [UNSNIP] He says that it's an empirical fact
("in the
world of sense") that some things are caused by antecedent conditions.
Either those conditions were uncaused - in which case there's at least
one uncaused thing - or caused by conditions antecedent to them. In
every case, either there is an uncaused thing, or the chain of
causation extends backward to yet earlier conditions. Either a chain's
infinite, or it has a beginning - which has to be an uncaused thing or
things.
"Everything must have a cause" is simply a ridiculous strawman that
some employ for their own reasons.[/US]
That's right
I'm glad you admit it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 12:57:41 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
[snip]
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
I'm glad you admit it.
Yes, I am sure you are glad that I agree that Aquinas does not say
everything must have a cause, but are you glad that I point out that
Aquinas says everything must have a cause except the uncaused First
Cause, because the uncause First Cause is special, which is the logical
fallacy of making a special pleading for the uncaused First Cause,
thereby debunking himself? 8^)
Is there something that you do not understand about the critical
thinkers, the doubters, rejecting the idea of First Cause due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading) in it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 01:04:33 PM |
|
|
In article <FxQwd.213770$V41.104960@attbi_s52>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
[snip]
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing.
That's right, he says everyting must have a cause except the uncaused
First Cause. That is why the idea of First Cause is summarily rejected;
it is summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy
(special pleading) that you can't get rid of, can you? If you can get
rid of it, please explain how. Otherwise your idea of First Cause is dead.
I'm glad you admit it.
Yes, I am sure you are glad that I agree that Aquinas does not say
everything must have a cause, but are you glad that I point out that
Aquinas says everything must have a cause except the uncaused First
Cause, because the uncause First Cause is special, which is the logical
fallacy of making a special pleading for the uncaused First Cause,
thereby debunking himself? 8^)
Which merely would fail to prove the existence of a First Cause true,
but does not in any way prove it false.
Is there something that you do not understand about the critical
thinkers, the doubters, rejecting the idea of First Cause due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading) in it?
While doubters can properly reject the *necessity* of a first cause as
unproven, that does not allow them to reject the *possibility* of a
First Cause. At least until that possibility can be specifically
eliminated.
And Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD
IGNORANTIAM (it can't be show to exist therefore it can't exist) does
not eliminate that possibility.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 09:57:38 AM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhh. Google Aquinas, god, first cause.
Google it yourself. Or read it here, if you prefer:
[snip]
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.aquinas.html
That is exactly what Aquinas argues.
Everything must have a cause.
He says no such thing. [UNSNIP]
[UNSNIP] He says that it's an empirical fact
("in the
world of sense") that some things are caused by antecedent conditions.
Either those conditions were uncaused - in which case there's at least
one uncaused thing - or caused by conditions antecedent to them. In
every case, either there is an uncaused thing, or the chain of
causation extends backward to yet earlier conditions. Either a chain's
infinite, or it has a beginning - which has to be an uncaused thing or
things.
"Everything must have a cause" is simply a ridiculous strawman that
some employ for their own reasons
[/US]
That's right
I'm glad you admit it.
Yes, I am sure you are glad that I agree that Aquinas does not say
everything must have a cause,
Actually, dear boy, I thought you were admitting that it was your
ridiculous strawman; and I'm always glad to see honesty on Usenet.
but are you glad that I point out that
Aquinas says everything must have a cause except the uncaused First
Cause, because the uncause First Cause is special, which is the
logical
fallacy of making a special pleading for the uncaused First Cause,
thereby debunking himself? 8^)
No, because (for the same reasons) I'm not glad to see dishonesty.
(Since you've read the argument and had it explained to you, it's fair
to conclude that you're now being deliberately dishonest.)
Is there something that you do not understand about the critical
thinkers, the doubters, rejecting the idea of First Cause due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading) in it?
Not that I can see; and since you're neither a thinker or doubter, you
wouldn't be able to tell me anyway. But there is something I don't
understand about those who lie about written evidence, and since you're
that type of liar you can have a shot at explaining that:
Since anyone can read the argument for himself, why do you think you
can get away with lying about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
20 Dec 2004 12:00:55 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Is there something that you do not understand about the critical
thinkers, the doubters, rejecting the idea of First Cause due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading) in it?
Not that I can see
Then you do not understand that special pleading is summarily rejected
as logical fallacy?
The argument you are championing has special pleading inherent in it,
that your hypothetical First Cause is special, in that everything must
have a cause except for your hypothetical First Cause thingy, which is
ad hoc hypothetically special.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X Capon, the Simple Pimple, argues ad Ig again |
20 Dec 2004 07:31:14 PM |
|
|
In article <mrExd.227794$V41.43051@attbi_s52>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Is there something that you do not understand about the critical
thinkers, the doubters, rejecting the idea of First Cause due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading) in it?
Not that I can see
Then you do not understand that special pleading is summarily rejected
as logical fallacy?
But that does not mean that the conclusion pled for must therefore be
false. To argue such, as Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, does, is the
fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
The argument you are championing has special pleading inherent in it,
that your hypothetical First Cause is special, in that everything must
have a cause except for your hypothetical First Cause thingy, which is
ad hoc hypothetically special.
If that were our argument, which it is not, the fallacy of that argument
does not rove a First Cause impossible. To claim it does is the fallacy
of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 08:03:31 PM |
|
|
In article <8jKvd.655586$mD.74910@attbi_s02>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there
is at given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only
God, who is special? That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no ...
Well yes ...
Well, no. Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, argues that special
pleading invalidates its conclusion, whereas special pleading at worst
merely fails to establish its conclusion.
If the principles of logic were otherwise, any conclusion could be
disproved simply by making a special pleading for it.
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's argument is actually a textbook
perfect example of the fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam',
i.e., arguing that failure to prove something true proves it false.
This type of argument is one of Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's
favorites, both to use himself and to accuse others of using when he has
no legitimate way of refuting them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
